News:

Guests can now post!

Welcome to Intelligent Answers. As a guest, you are now able to post a question, subject to getting through our spam-bot filters. However, if you want to answer any questions, you will need to register. Thanks for visting! (BTW - guests cannot post links, and if you post spam, we will block your IP and report you to every spam protection site we can find - we work hard to keep this site spam free for the benefit and enjoyment of our members!)

Topic Summary

Posted by: P-Kasso2

I came to the 'Leaving Neverland' documentary with an open mind, and afterwards, my opinion had been swayed. I'll not say which way.

The arguments go that Michael Jackson cannot defend himself, which is entirely true. Jimmy Savile was in a similar position (i.e. no longer alive to defend himself), but an independent inquiry effectively confirmed that he was a sexual predator, and his actions were universally condemned.

Is there anyone who could, or should, investigate the allegations, as a representative of the legal system, to cut through all the myths and lies, to review the evidence gathered against Michael Jackson when he has been investigated previously, to either back up the Jackson family's protestations of innocence, or his accusers' claims of guilt?

Good question Duff. And here is my suggested answer...

There is a certain Conservative PM who'll very soon have a lot of free time on her hands and could well take the job on.

But to be serious for a moment, I really don't think that the fact that Michael Jackson is no longer alive should be a hindering issue. After all, were he still available, we could expect that Michael Jackson, in defending himself, would only resort to denying everything point blank. Lies are probably the best form of defence he would have.

So any enquiry would naturally be limited to word of mouth testimonies.

Given that, an enquiry should still go ahead in order to determine whether the complainants (ie Jackson's young victims) are telling the truth or not. The true motives of his accusers (given the attraction of the vast pot of money available and the opportunity for endless PR coverage) could well be motives an independent enquiry could uncover once and for all.

An enquiry will have no easy job proving or disproving the accusers' motives.

Which leads me back to wondering if my suggestion of Theresa May as arbiter is even worth even considering...not least because I am not sure if Theresa May can actually distinguish between the truth or not. But, to be upbeat, she is currently proving day after day that she does have the tenacity to hang on relentlessly, grimly ploughing on even long after a case has become totally bogged down and unsolvable.

Maybe she is not such a bad candidate after all?

Posted by: Duffield1

I came to the 'Leaving Neverland' documentary with an open mind, and afterwards, my opinion had been swayed. I'll not say which way.

The arguments go that Michael Jackson cannot defend himself, which is entirely true. Jimmy Savile was in a similar position (i.e. no longer alive to defend himself), but an independent inquiry effectively confirmed that he was a sexual predator, and his actions were universally condemned.

Is there anyone who could, or should, investigate the allegations, as a representative of the legal system, to cut through all the myths and lies, to review the evidence gathered against Michael Jackson when he has been investigated previously, to either back up the Jackson family's protestations of innocence, or his accusers' claims of guilt?